SEC Chairman Explains Why NFTs Are Not Securities: 'Like Buying Trading Cards'

marsbitPubblicato 2026-03-19Pubblicato ultima volta 2026-03-19

Introduzione

SEC Chairman Paul Atkins explained in a CNBC interview why NFTs are generally not considered securities, comparing them to collectibles like baseball cards. The SEC recently issued guidance identifying four categories of digital assets not classified as securities: digital commodities, digital tools, digital collectibles (including NFTs), and stablecoins. Atkins emphasized that NFTs are typically "bought and held" assets rather than investment contracts, which are central to the definition of a security. He noted that each asset is evaluated based on its specific facts and circumstances, but digital collectibles are generally viewed as immutable purchases not intended for trading like traditional securities. This reflects a broader shift in the SEC’s approach under Atkins’ leadership, moving away from enforcement-driven regulation toward clearer guidance and a more predictable framework. The change aligns with the Trump administration's crypto-friendly stance, with Atkins criticizing past regulatory missteps that he believes set the U.S. back in crypto innovation.

Author: Sam Bourgi

Compiled by: Deep Tide TechFlow

Deep Tide Introduction: SEC Chairman Paul Atkins further explained in a CNBC interview why NFTs generally do not constitute securities. The SEC recently released an interpretive document listing four categories of digital assets that are not securities: digital commodities, digital instruments, digital collectibles (including NFTs), and stablecoins.

Atkins compared NFTs to baseball cards, emphasizing that such assets are "bought and held" and do not involve investment contracts. This is the latest move by the SEC under Atkins' leadership to shift from "enforcement-driven" to "guidance-driven" regulation.

Full text as follows:

After the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) listed four major categories of digital assets not subject to securities laws, Chairman Paul Atkins further explained why non-fungible tokens (NFTs) generally do not meet the definition of securities.

In a CNBC interview on Wednesday, Atkins reiterated the four categories of digital assets identified in the SEC's recent interpretive document that are typically not considered securities: digital commodities, digital instruments, digital collectibles like NFTs, and stablecoins.

During the interview, host Andrew Ross Sorkin pressed the issue of digital collectibles, noting that depending on their structure, they could more easily be classified as securities.

Atkins responded, "That's true of anything." He emphasized that the SEC's analysis still depends on the specific facts and circumstances of each asset, particularly whether it involves an investment contract under long-standing legal precedent.

Atkins stated that digital collectibles are generally viewed as items to be bought and held, similar to physical collectibles, rather than investment contracts. Investment contracts are a core defining feature of securities.

He said, "These collectibles, like baseball cards, memes, memecoins, NFTs, are things someone buys. It's an immutable purchase...unlike other assets that people trade."

Caption: Paul Atkins interviewed on CNBC. Source: CNBC

SEC Continues to Move Away from "Enforcement-Driven" Crypto Policy

Under Atkins' leadership, the SEC's approach to regulating digital assets has undergone a noticeable adjustment. This shift coincides with the Trump administration, which is more crypto-friendly and took office in early 2025.

Atkins said in the CNBC interview, "We are breaking with the past." He described the SEC's efforts to promote clearer guidance and a more predictable regulatory framework.

Last year, Atkins criticized the SEC's previous reliance on "regulation by enforcement" and promised to move away from this approach. He also noted that tokenization is a key innovation that regulators should support rather than restrict.

Since then, he has repeatedly stated that past regulatory missteps have set the U.S. back by as much as a decade in crypto development and vowed to reverse this situation.

Domande pertinenti

QWhat are the four categories of digital assets that the SEC recently identified as typically not being considered securities?

AThe four categories are digital commodities, digital tools, digital collectibles (including NFTs), and stablecoins.

QHow did SEC Chairman Paul Atkins compare NFTs to explain why they are not securities?

AHe compared NFTs to baseball cards, stating they are 'bought and held' items, similar to physical collectibles, and do not involve investment contracts.

QWhat shift in regulatory approach has the SEC undergone under Chairman Paul Atkins' leadership?

AThe SEC has shifted from an 'enforcement-driven' approach to a 'guidance-driven' one, focusing on clearer guidance and a more predictable regulatory framework.

QAccording to the article, what did Paul Atkins say about the impact of past regulatory mistakes on the U.S. crypto industry?

AHe stated that past regulatory missteps set the U.S. back by as much as a decade in crypto development and vowed to reverse this situation.

QWhat key feature did Atkins emphasize as central to the definition of a security in the context of digital assets?

AHe emphasized that the key feature is whether the asset involves an investment contract under long-standing legal precedent.

Letture associate

Gensyn AI: Don't Let AI Repeat the Mistakes of the Internet

In recent months, the rapid growth of the AI industry has attracted significant talent from the crypto sector. A persistent question among researchers intersecting both fields is whether blockchain can become a foundational part of AI infrastructure. While many previous AI and Crypto projects focused on application layers (like AI Agents, on-chain reasoning, data markets, and compute rentals), few achieved viable commercial models. Gensyn differentiates itself by targeting the most critical and expensive layer of AI: model training. Gensyn aims to organize globally distributed GPU resources into an open AI training network. Developers can submit training tasks, nodes provide computational power, and the network verifies results while distributing incentives. The core issue addressed is not decentralization for its own sake, but the increasing centralization of compute power among tech giants. In the era of large models, access to GPUs (like the H100) has become a decisive bottleneck, dictating the pace of AI development. Major AI companies are heavily dependent on large cloud providers for compute resources. Gensyn's approach is significant for several reasons: 1) It operates at the core infrastructure layer (model training), the most resource-intensive and technically demanding part of the AI value chain. 2) It proposes a more open, collaborative model for compute, potentially increasing resource utilization by dynamically pooling idle GPUs, similar to early cloud computing logic. 3) Its technical moat lies in solving complex challenges like verifying training results, ensuring node honesty, and maintaining reliability in a distributed environment—making it more of a deep-tech infrastructure company. 4) It targets a validated, high-growth market with genuine demand, rather than pursuing blockchain integration without purpose. Ultimately, the boundaries between Crypto and AI are blurring. AI requires global resource coordination, incentive mechanisms, and collaborative systems—areas where crypto-native solutions excel. Gensyn represents a step toward making advanced training capabilities more accessible and collaborative, moving beyond a niche controlled by a few giants. If successful, it could evolve into a fundamental piece of AI infrastructure, where the most enduring value in the AI era is often created.

marsbit10 h fa

Gensyn AI: Don't Let AI Repeat the Mistakes of the Internet

marsbit10 h fa

Why is China's AI Developing So Fast? The Answer Lies Inside the Labs

A US researcher's visit to China's top AI labs reveals distinct cultural and organizational factors driving China's rapid AI development. While talent, data, and compute are similar to the West, Chinese labs excel through a pragmatic, execution-focused culture: less emphasis on individual stardom and conceptual debate, and more on teamwork, engineering optimization, and mastering the full tech stack. A key advantage is the integration of young students and researchers who approach model-building with fresh perspectives and low ego, prioritizing collective progress over personal credit. This contrasts with the US culture of self-promotion and "star scientist" narratives. Chinese labs also exhibit a strong "build, don't buy" mentality, preferring to develop core capabilities—like data pipelines and environments—in-house rather than relying on external services. The ecosystem feels more collaborative than tribal, with mutual respect among labs. While government support exists, its scale is unclear, and technical decisions appear driven by labs, not state mandates. Chinese companies across sectors, from platforms to consumer tech, are building their own foundational models to control their tech destiny, reflecting a broader cultural drive for technological sovereignty. Demand for AI is emerging, with spending patterns potentially mirroring cloud infrastructure more than traditional SaaS. Despite challenges like a less mature data industry and GPU shortages, Chinese labs are propelled by vast talent, rapid iteration, and deep integration with the open-source community. The competition is evolving beyond a pure model race into a contest of organizational execution, developer ecosystems, and industrial pragmatism.

marsbit12 h fa

Why is China's AI Developing So Fast? The Answer Lies Inside the Labs

marsbit12 h fa

3 Years, 5 Times: The Rebirth of a Century-Old Glass Factory

Corning, a 175-year-old glass company, is experiencing a dramatic revival as a key player in AI infrastructure, driven by surging demand for high-performance optical fiber in data centers. AI data centers require vastly more fiber than traditional ones—5 to 10 times as much per rack—to handle high-speed data transmission between GPUs. This structural demand shift, coupled with supply constraints from the lengthy expansion cycle for fiber preforms, has created a significant supply-demand gap. Nvidia has invested in Corning, along with Lumentum and Coherent, in a $4.5 billion total commitment to secure the optical supply chain for AI. Corning's competitive edge lies in its expertise in producing ultra-low-loss, high-density, and bend-resistant specialty fiber, which is critical for 800G+ and future 1.6T data rates. Its deep involvement in co-packaged optics (CPO) with partners like Nvidia further solidifies its position. While not the largest fiber manufacturer globally, Corning's revenue from enterprise/data center clients now exceeds 40% of its optical communications sales, and it has secured multi-year supply agreements with major hyperscalers including Meta and Nvidia. Financially, Corning's optical communications revenue has surged, doubling from $1.3 billion in 2023 to over $3 billion in 2025. Its stock price has risen nearly 6-fold since late 2023. Key future catalysts include the rollout of Nvidia's CPO products and the scale of undisclosed customer agreements. However, risks include high current valuations and potential disruption from next-generation technologies like hollow-core fiber. The company's long-term bet on light over electricity, maintained even through the telecom bubble crash, is now being validated by the AI boom.

marsbit12 h fa

3 Years, 5 Times: The Rebirth of a Century-Old Glass Factory

marsbit12 h fa

Trading

Spot
Futures
活动图片